PERU ELIMINATES PAROLE BENEFITS FOR TERRORISTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 001489

SIPDIS

CA/OCS/ACS FOR TCOLEY

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/05/2019
TAGS: PGOV CASC PTER PE
SUBJECT: PERU ELIMINATES PAROLE BENEFITS FOR TERRORISTS

REF: LIMA 1439

Classified By: CDA James Nealon for reasons 1.4b and d.


1. (C) Summary: Congress has passed a law that eliminates
parole benefits for persons convicted of terrorist charges.
The executive had prepared and sent this bill to Congress
amid several high-profile setbacks in its continuing struggle
against terrorism. In this context, the law appears more an
effort to highlight government action against a perceived
rising threat than an attempt to keep any specific individual
in jail. According to an initial reading, the law should not
prevent individuals imprisoned on terrorist charges from
accessing the early parole benefits they have accrued to
date. End summary.


2. (U) In an October 1 plenary session, Congress passed a
law that eliminates parole benefits for persons convicted on
terrorist charges. Since 2003, individuals convicted of
terrorism have been eligible for parole and conditional early
release based on credits earned for good behavior (work and
study) -- on the basis of one day earned for every seven
spent working or studying. According to media and other
reports, hundreds of convicted terrorists have benefited from
these privileges to gain early release from prison. One
reason for the change is that those convicted of other
"serious crimes" such as rape of a minor and torture are not
eligible for parole. Additionally, some observers objected
to the fact that terrorists enjoyed these privileges while
members of the armed forces convicted of human rights
violations are denied them. (Note: Under the Fujimori
government, individuals convicted of terrorism were not
eligible for benefits; this was reversed under the Toledo
administration following the conclusion of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. End Note.)


3. (C) More important, however, was the political context
in which the law was written and passed. The executive sent
the bill to Congress in the wake of several high-profile
setbacks in its continuing fight against terrorism, including
the downing by Sendero Luminoso (SL) terrorists of an Army
helicopter in the Apurimac and Ene River Valley (or VRAE, an
SL stronghold) and the publication of a book penned by SL
founder Abimael Guzman in prison, which caught the government
and intelligence services by surprise. This was compounded
by a flurry of news reports suggesting that the terrorist
insurgency might be re-emerging, in some cases fed by
convicted terrorists who had benefited from early prison
release. Reports that high-ranking terrorist leaders could
soon be paroled also fueled support for the measure.
Terrorist leaders, Osman Morote (SL) and Alberto Galvez
(MRTA) have been reported as eligible for parole next year
after completing three-quarters of their 25 year sentences.
Prime Minister Javier Velasquez Quesquen and other high-level
government officials cited the importance of keeping these
enemies of the state behind bars.


4. (C) In this context, many observers view the law as an
effort to overcome the perception of government inaction
rather than an attempt to keep any specific individual in
prison. In a conversation immediately following publication
of Guzman's book, Minister of Justice Aurelio Pastor
(protect) told us he would lead a proactive government effort
to confront the rising threat head on, and that stripping
terrorists of unjust privileges was the start. The
government has begun looking at ways to clarify the legal
protections of security forces tasked with combating
terrorists and narco-traffickers, arguing that their
vulnerability to ex-post facto human rights accusations
undermines the state's ability to ensure security and contain
the threat (septel.) According to human rights NGOs, the new
law stripping benefits from convicted terrorists takes Peru
out of step with international human rights law, and other
government proposals to clarify legal protections for
security forces are unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

Not Retroactive
--------------

5. (C) According to an initial reading, the law cannot be
applied retroactively and should therefore not eliminate
benefits accrued to individual prisoners up until the date it
was passed. A congressional staffer with the Justice
Committee emphasized that retroactive application is
unconstitutional, and indicated that the law was written so
that prisoners would not lose the days toward early parole
earned through study and work. Even though the law does not
appear to be aimed at individuals, Congressman Rolando Souza,
current President of the Human Rights Committee, has publicly
named certain individuals - including Lori Berenson, a U.S.
citizen currently in prison on charges of collaboration with
terrorism - as examples of prisoners who should not receive
early release benefits. The Consular Section is seeking
clarification on the law's possible impact in connection with
Ms. Berenson.
NEALON